Poll: Is world peace possible within our lifetime?

We do have a legal base. It's just different then the one we have today.

This guy explains it well:

[yt:35jmrhn7]PoCGFDCuzww[/yt:35jmrhn7]

That's somewhat true, although it does assume that everyone is getting an equal amount that is sustainable. If everyone gets the equal amount and there was a drought or something like that then the standards would fall much more rapidly than in modern society. Thus Crime would flourish and chaos would unfold.

So it works, it just assumes the perfect conditions and is incredibly unstable. It would be like me saying that Capitalism would end crime because everyone would be working and thus gaining enough to not resort to criminal action.

It doesn't assume perfect conditions, the thing about Anarchist society is that they eliminate the above mentioned "rugged individualism" and replaces it with a sense of community (Something that doesn't exist in American society). In times of trouble Anarchists would be more concerned with fixing rather than looting.

Here's the problem with any utopian ideology (like your brand of anarchism): shit don't carry over. People have a natural tendency for self-preservation that, in the context of civilization, translates to greed. It's entirely possible for some people to come to believe that this most basic instinct should be suppressed, but most of us don't want to carry that burden, nor do we think it's necessary. Children who are born into a society with complete freedom will not have the same self-repressing drive to help the community that the adults do. Ideology is something you aren't born with. Ideology isn't something you can learn. Ideology is something you decide. And all previous examples of utopian societies have fallen apart (provided they even last long enough) because new people don't want to live by the ideas of their elders, or at least enough of them.

Now you can enforce ideology to an extent. But enforcement isn't exactly an anarchist's strong suit...

Utopian it is not my friend. No one claims it to be, no one wants it to be.

Utopian in the sense that it's the last and best society out there (according to proponents, not objective reality). But the point holds true no matter what you label it since by its very nature a society of anarchists is a society of like-minded intellectuals. It's hard to breed that sort.

You don't have to be apart of it if you don't want too. You leave us alone, we leave you alone. Trade is optional.

That's the point I'm making here. Shit don't carry over. An anarchist society isn't a viable civilization for very long.

We have no way of knowing that because every time Anarchy has been tried on a large scale it's been stomped out by a reactionary military movement.

If you want to argue that "shit don't carry over" on small scale (Communes) then I am would have to agree (For the most part. Some people have gotten it to work small scale).

It's a natural tendency for people to be greedy. The center is going to gravitate towards our natural inclination for more, and while it may not necessarily manifest as a desire to exploit others, it will mean a big rift in the ideological cohesion of the society. Look at any ideological group (most prominent probably being the USSR) and you'll see this happen. This is a big problem for anarchists because you don't force people to stick together or get along. Which brings us to this:

This is a legitimate concern for an anarchist society. Because it's a voluntary association, and some people will have to be exiled or leave (generally being the most dangerous criminals or ideologically opposed) then it makes sense that there will always be an aggressive external opposition to an anarchist society.

Actually I think Anarchies can pull off succesful military defence so long as they've actually got a history of exsistance and don't have the odds horribly stacked against them (Paris Commune).

Sure the enemy army would march in and probably oblitherate the militias, but then all of a sudden bombs would start going off, and there'd be an insurgency, and soon open rebellion.

It's the same with all systems, so long as there are people willing to support it at all costs it can sustain tragic damage.

:roll: Stop being a pessimist.
Human beings aren't wired for greed but for empathy.
As demonstrated here:
[yt:1mkbb5sz]l7AWnfFRc7g[/yt:1mkbb5sz]

I won't argue that self-preservation isn't in there, but it's not the whole picture.

The desire for more and the need to exploit are abolished when you can have whatever you want. But you've all ready shown your hatred for Technocrats so I won't get to far with this one.

The problem with the USSR was that those people had everything taken away from them. Anarchists don't want to do that, we still have respect for the individual.

If they truely are Anarchists, they shouldn't have to be forced to do anything.

Let me make this clear: Anarchists, while we don't want to wage war, recognize the importance of a militia.

There is the possibility of it happening, but the world would have to be united into a single nation to make it happen.

However empathy is race driven. In the study, which appears in the journal Current Biology, people of Italian and African descent watched short film clips that showed needles pricking black- and white-skinned hands. As they watched, researchers measured the participants' empathy (i.e., their nervous-system activity) by monitoring sensors attached to the same spot on their hands. They also tracked the participants' heart rates and sweat-gland activity, a common measure of emotional response.White observers reacted more to the pain of white than black models, and black observers reacted more to the pain of black than white models. The researchers gauged prejudice by testing the participants on how readily they associated good and bad concepts with Italians and Africans. The people who showed a strong preference for their own group in this test also tended to show the least empathy when the hand belonging to the other group was needled.

:roll: Stop being a pessimist.
Human beings aren't wired for greed but for empathy.
As demonstrated here:
[yt:ei0toww5]l7AWnfFRc7g[/yt:ei0toww5]

respect for the individual./quote]

Hes an amazing drawer

If people are naturally inclined to be greedy which could devolve into the urge to opress people, then that would be an argument in favor of anarchism. The state with its monopoly of violence and its centrallised institutions where few rule many (these few might be democratically elected or have support of the people) makes it much easier for a limited number of people to take control of these institutions who are already in place and use them for suppression and exploitation.
In Anarchy on the other hand no such institutions exist which would make it much harder to assert the power of one group over another (harder not impossible)
Same principle when talking about a foreign invasion by a state, in a statist society this invasion would simply have to defeat the part of that society that is specialized in fighting, in other words the military. And when the occupation is done the invaders can take over the institutions for domination that are already present and use them to dominate the population of that country.
In Anarchy the statist invader would need to supress resistance from the entire society (guerilla warfare) and need to invent new institutions to continue this suppression.
So for example if you see how long it took for the Nazi's to take over Germany and then compare that to how long it took the Americans to take over the Native American tribes.

Also if society is as you say deeply pluralistic, wouldnt it be more logical to allow people to organize themselves according to their personal choice and opinions instead of forcing the single administration upon a hugely diverse group of people who constanly disagree on how this administration should work and all the disunity and polarization that follows out of this.

Why would a person that is ideologically opposed to an anarchist organization want to join it in the first place? Anarchy would generally allow people to organize as they like as long as they dont impose their power over people who dont want to belong to their organization. Hell technically you could even have a neo-nazi community in anarchy if they dont bother anyone.

Also the idea of outcasting a certain part of the population is also present within the state. In problem neighbourhoods ridden with crime the state generally show a lack of intrest in putting in investments and this while they still assert their monopoly on violence and administration to these neighbourhoods while generally not providing them many usefull services in return.
In Anarchy this would also be possible but this would also allow these neighbourhoods to organize themselves and rebuild themselves.

Alas, as nice as world peace sounds it will never happen. The only thing I can think of that would make humans stop killing each other is if there was some out side force that threaten our existence as a species. So unless aliens invade or a giant asteroid is going to hit us, I doubt we will stay our blades. The only thing we can do is make war less frequent and less deadly. Which I also doubt will happen anytime soon.

So you're in the Ozymandias (of Watchmen) camp: manufacture a fictional or real external threat to unite the world.

[citation needed]